Universe theory discussion

Originally posted by inimalist
Seriously, not to sound like a dick, but if you have no experience with the scientific process to the point where you can't distinguish between review and collaboration, you probably shouldn't be commenting on it. Like, just as a question, have you ever gone through a peer-review process? Have you ever had an article rejected? Have you seen the way such reviews are written?

Why are so heated? ...Of course I know what a peer-review process is (which also exists in other studies besides science) and it's easy to distinguish collaboration - I'm talking about something else, genuine criticism (not from a teacher-student aspect, but between colleagues) and contribution and etiquette, which you're not addressing.

I'll respect you're opinion, but you have to forgive me if I think you're not an authority on this, it certainly seems to be that way.

Also, sinking to the point where you practically curse, i.e (not to sound like a dick) sounds juvenile and isn't very etiquette savvy either. Do you use that kind of vulgar writting in your peer-review projects? I hope not. Still, no offense intended.

I leave it at that. I think we both unintentionally hijacked the point of this particular thread. ...Sorry.

ok, so explain why peer review works best if the reviewers feel as though they are collaborators on the to-be-published research

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, so explain why peer review works best if the reviewers feel as though they are collaborators on the to-be-published research

Can we take this little "Debate" somewhere else? I don't want to hijack this thread any longer. It's not respectful. We've both gotten far off track of the original subject matter.

fair enough, make a thread and i will continue... though, I don't think we are as far away as it might seem... In a lot of cases I'd say "grow a thicker skin", but I'm not encouraging trolling in terms of how it applies to the interweb (though I will admit I'm not above it)

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Kandy offered constructive criticism and went on to explain his viewpoint. I have no problem with this, other than I originally intended for people to give their own theories and not for the thread to just become a dissection of my theory.
I replied to his first post and was planning on replying to the second post before I saw a moderator trolling and got annoyed.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
My reply now is simply I disagree that the speed of light has a limit. I believe there is a hell of a lot wrong with modern science, in particular the big bang theory and general relativity.

But, is it not POSSIBLE, considering the history of science, when people thought there were only 4 elements and we we centre of the universe and the earth was flat, is it not possible that modern science is fundamentally wrong?
Or are humans so arrogant to think "we've cracked it, you are an idiot if you don't accept our science"
I am not saying my own personal theory is correct, it is just my own personal theory.
The reality is that humans probably are incapable of understanding the universe, but we can still think about it.

Obviously simply not accepting a theory is not grounds for declaring someone an idiot. If they have strong reason for disagreeing, with a strong foundation in math and science, then criticism is grounds for learning more. But if the reason you don't accept something is just because it "feels" wrong, then I would say that is not a very intelligent position to hold.

This is the reason why I try and explain to you; not to make you feel like an idiot, but actually trying to examine the reasons you believe what you do. This is how you LEARN things, by challenging your own knowledge.

IMO, people should live by the standards of falsifiability. If you see someone elses theory, or come up with one of your own, the first things you should ask are "what are the flaws in this theory? What could prove it wrong? How can I improve on these flaws? Do I have a good answer to people's questions about it? Is it a fully developed idea?" If you aren't asking these questions, then that's exactly the kind of arrogant "four elements" logic you were talking about.

Now, the good thing is, you acknowledge this theory is simply your viewpoint. To me, this would mean you should be interested in how it stacks up to evidence, mathematics etc. I have no idea why you would get angry about such a thing. I mean, this theory is not your "religion", it is not beyond questioning. I would rather come up with a 100 theories and have them all proved false, then have a single theory I refuse to submit to rigorous analysis.

Originally posted by King Kandy
IMO, people should live by the standards of falsifiability. If you see someone elses theory, or come up with one of your own, the first things you should ask are "what are the flaws in this theory? What could prove it wrong? How can I improve on these flaws? Do I have a good answer to people's questions about it? Is it a fully developed idea?" If you aren't asking these questions, then that's exactly the kind of arrogant "four elements" logic you were talking about.

damn, way to nail it, I've been trying for at least a page...

I think Grim misses the point of 'discussion' if he thinks a discussion thread should only consist of people posting their own theories and not commenting/critiquing the theories of others.

Originally posted by inimalist
damn, way to nail it, I've been trying for at least a page...

Kandy's been killing it in this thread in general. I decided to bow out of direct replies because it just seemed to be a distraction.

Originally posted by inimalist
In many ways, review by fellow scientists is the most intense form of trolling, because at the end of the day, their goal is EXACTLY to make you look like you don't know what you are talking about. Its only if you can withstand the most intense criticism that you have the stomach for science.

😆 😆 😆

It's true.

And, no, feelings are not checked at the door. Some researchers form "nemeses" that they loathe, entirely, till their death bed...with no hope of reconcilation. There are some famous scientific feuds that started with simple scientific criticism.

About the arguing:

I see exactly where both sides are coming from. Yes, there are much nicer ways to go about disagreeing/proving wrong the OP and some of the other posters's ideas. Sure, you can justify making what looks like "dickish" comments, quite well, by indicating that there is nothing wrong with the content and that's how it works in the real world. But you could also be much nicer about it at the same time.

But, at the end of the day, if you don't want you ideas to be ripped a new one...don't talk about them and keep them to yourself. If you're open to criticism, go post about it on an internet forum. 😐

About the thread: I also believe that "c" is a general idea and not an absolute. The ceiling isn't necessary "c" because we don't know what a true vacuum contains. When we can measure the speed of light in "true oblivion", then we can be sure of "c". In the contruct of our universe (the set of physics by which everything is governed), sure, we can say "c"...but I think some of you may have missed that point from the opening post: we can't be sure that "c" is truly absolute unless we measured light in a truely empty and uninfluenced "vacuum". Zero-point energy, higher and lower energy states of "macro" ...stufff...., other universes. There's so much that could be influencing how stuff just does stuff that the only thing we can be sure of is uncertainty.

Originally posted by King Kandy
It has nothing to do with your theory, or my own viewpoint. I was trying to teach what the "speed of light" concept is supposed to actually represent. Are you interested in learning? I am not trying to start a debate, I was trying to give a concise explanation using actual math. I really see no point in making a thread if you don't have any intention of learning from it.

But see, this is exactly the problem. It is certainly possible that the current concepts of science are wrong. Nobody is denying that, and nobody is saying those ideas MUST be correct. Like I said, that is not how science works, that is dogma.

Obviously simply not accepting a theory is not grounds for declaring someone an idiot. If they have strong reason for disagreeing, with a strong foundation in math and science, then criticism is grounds for learning more. But if the reason you don't accept something is just because it "feels" wrong, then I would say that is not a very intelligent position to hold.

This is the reason why I try and explain to you; not to make you feel like an idiot, but actually trying to examine the reasons you believe what you do. This is how you LEARN things, by challenging your own knowledge.

IMO, people should live by the standards of falsifiability. If you see someone elses theory, or come up with one of your own, the first things you should ask are "what are the flaws in this theory? What could prove it wrong? How can I improve on these flaws? Do I have a good answer to people's questions about it? Is it a fully developed idea?" If you aren't asking these questions, then that's exactly the kind of arrogant "four elements" logic you were talking about.

Now, the good thing is, you acknowledge this theory is simply your viewpoint. To me, this would mean you should be interested in how it stacks up to evidence, mathematics etc. I have no idea why you would get angry about such a thing. I mean, this theory is not your "religion", it is not beyond questioning. I would rather come up with a 100 theories and have them all proved false, then have a single theory I refuse to submit to rigorous analysis.

I will state some problems/questions I have regarding certain scientific theories.
When I am asking the questions I will try to be as logical as possible.

Lets start with the Big Bang.
Scientists say the universe is x number of years old. ~14 billion years. The exact age does not really matter.
So, lets say it is 14 billion years old. What existed 15 billion years ago?
There are 2 possible answers. Nothing or something.

If nothing existed, then this implies that at some point something was created.
How was is created? How does something come from nothing?
Throughout history people have been religious and claimed "creation" of some kind or another.
In my opinion this theory is not science but religious dogma.

So, if something existed 15 billion years ago what was it?
Did everything that exists today, exist in a tiny hot dense state? Every single last scrap of energy?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed etc.
So this must be true.
How long did it remain in this state before the big bang?
One answer some scientists say is that there was a previous universe and the hot dense state was the result of a big crunch, right?
Okay, scientists say that our universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating.
The fate of our universe will be a kind of cold death and not a big crunch.
So why do they believe the previous universe would undergo a big crunch but our universe will not?
To me it is illogical. What is the difference?

How about the "nothingness" that exists outside our universe.
At the time of the hot dense state early universe, what existed outside?
Nothing they say.
So if there is nothing "outside" our universe, how did the universe expand?
The universe was surrounded by nothingness, not matter, energy or anything whatsoever.
The explanation they come up with is space itself folds in on itself in some bizarre way.
To me this idea is more suited to star trek.

Next is inflation. At some early stage there was a certain period of time where the universe expanded very very fast indeed, all the while folding in on itself.
The rate of this specific expansion happened to enable "faster than light" speeds.
Oh, so it is actually possible for the space itself to expand faster than light during this inflation period, but once all the dust settles the speed limit is imposed.

Why do the scientists believe the big bang? The main piece of evidence they have is the redshift of distant galaxies.
When they looked at certain galaxies they noticed that the light had been redshifted. The galaxies that they believed to be further away had a greater redshift.
I have a big problem with this scientific method and the conclusion they reached.
When they observed the data, all they saw what that the light was redshifted.
There is no actual proof as to WHY the light was redshifted.
Why is it that all the distant galaxies are moving away from us? Are we the centre of the universe again?
Could it not be possible that the reason for the redshift was another reason?
If light loses energy on its journey would it redshift?
If the light encounters interstellar objects along its journey could these cause redshift?
They say the more distant the galaxy, the greater the redshift.
Well the more distant the journey, the more time there is for the light to lose energy and encounter various interstellar objects.
Another curious thing is, the reason they say the light is redshifted is because space itself is expanding but remember, it is not expanding into the nothingness surrounding it, but instead folding in on itself.
What kind of crazy arse universe is this?

Final thing is time travel.
The scientists say that because of general relativity, if you travel at the speed of light, time stands still.
And, as well as that, if you go faster than light, you could travel back in time.
Now, I do not understand why they believe this?
Back in November 1955 all the energy, particles and atoms, throughout the entire universe were positioned in such a way, vibrating in such a way, moving in such a way, they had a certain level of energy etc etc
Now, how could simply going faster than light cause everything in the entire universe to return to this moment in time?
I do not believe that time travel is possible at all.
How does anything in the universe have any effect on time.
I think of time as a human concept, it is just a measuring device.
You can make it part of a mathematical equation of you wish, but then it is no longer time. It has become "space time". Completely different to true time.

those are my questions and problems, had enough now

Originally posted by dadudemon
About the thread: I also believe that "c" is a general idea and not an absolute. The ceiling isn't necessary "c" because we don't know what a true vacuum contains. When we can measure the speed of light in "true oblivion", then we can be sure of "c". In the contruct of our universe (the set of physics by which everything is governed), sure, we can say "c"...but I think some of you may have missed that point from the opening post: we can't be sure that "c" is truly absolute unless we measured light in a truely empty and uninfluenced "vacuum". Zero-point energy, higher and lower energy states of "macro" ...stufff...., other universes. There's so much that could be influencing how stuff just does stuff that the only thing we can be sure of is uncertainty.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Lets start with the Big Bang.
Scientists say the universe is x number of years old. ~14 billion years. The exact age does not really matter.
So, lets say it is 14 billion years old. What existed 15 billion years ago?
There are 2 possible answers. Nothing or something.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
So, if something existed 15 billion years ago what was it?
Did everything that exists today, exist in a tiny hot dense state? Every single last scrap of energy?
Energy cannot be created or destroyed etc.
So this must be true.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
How long did it remain in this state before the big bang?
One answer some scientists say is that there was a previous universe and the hot dense state was the result of a big crunch, right?
Okay, scientists say that our universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating.
The fate of our universe will be a kind of cold death and not a big crunch.
So why do they believe the previous universe would undergo a big crunch but our universe will not?
To me it is illogical. What is the difference?

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
How about the "nothingness" that exists outside our universe.
At the time of the hot dense state early universe, what existed outside?
Nothing they say.
So if there is nothing "outside" our universe, how did the universe expand?
The universe was surrounded by nothingness, not matter, energy or anything whatsoever.
The explanation they come up with is space itself folds in on itself in some bizarre way.
To me this idea is more suited to star trek.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Next is inflation. At some early stage there was a certain period of time where the universe expanded very very fast indeed, all the while folding in on itself.
The rate of this specific expansion happened to enable "faster than light" speeds.
Oh, so it is actually possible for the space itself to expand faster than light during this inflation period, but once all the dust settles the speed limit is imposed.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Why do the scientists believe the big bang? The main piece of evidence they have is the redshift of distant galaxies.
When they looked at certain galaxies they noticed that the light had been redshifted. The galaxies that they believed to be further away had a greater redshift.
I have a big problem with this scientific method and the conclusion they reached.
When they observed the data, all they saw what that the light was redshifted.
There is no actual proof as to WHY the light was redshifted.
Why is it that all the distant galaxies are moving away from us? Are we the centre of the universe again?
Could it not be possible that the reason for the redshift was another reason?
If light loses energy on its journey would it redshift?
If the light encounters interstellar objects along its journey could these cause redshift?
They say the more distant the galaxy, the greater the redshift.
Well the more distant the journey, the more time there is for the light to lose energy and encounter various interstellar objects.
Another curious thing is, the reason they say the light is redshifted is because space itself is expanding but remember, it is not expanding into the nothingness surrounding it, but instead folding in on itself.
What kind of crazy arse universe is this?

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
Final thing is time travel.
The scientists say that because of general relativity, if you travel at the speed of light, time stands still.
And, as well as that, if you go faster than light, you could travel back in time.
Now, I do not understand why they believe this?
Back in November 1955 all the energy, particles and atoms, throughout the entire universe were positioned in such a way, vibrating in such a way, moving in such a way, they had a certain level of energy etc etc
Now, how could simply going faster than light cause everything in the entire universe to return to this moment in time?
I do not believe that time travel is possible at all.
How does anything in the universe have any effect on time.
I think of time as a human concept, it is just a measuring device.
You can make it part of a mathematical equation of you wish, but then it is no longer time. It has become "space time". Completely different to true time.

Your position of time is basically backwards. The "space time" is what is true as in, actually reflects the reality of the universe. The sort of view of time in human language, does not really reflect anything real, it is just a model our brain has evolved to make sense of things. Since most of these extreme situations would never impact an ancient animal, we are not really equipped to think about them in a visual, intuitive way. That is why these sort of concepts seem so counter intuitive to people. That's why it pays to have some basic knowledge of mathematics (at least some calculus) going into these discussions.

The universe is really a very, very small pea.

Why does it seem so big when it's such a small pea? Well, that's easy, it's cause we are even very, very, very much smaller. Now, peas, as everyone knows are green, the universe though is black...except for the places where it is not. That makes no sense...don't worry though, it's just a theory. Moving on. Since the universe is a pea, it's either in a pod, being eaten or being digested. Those three being the natural states of a pea. Now, it doesn't seem like we are eaten at the moment, does it? So therefore we are not in the peas state of being eaten. Because that is inarguably true I postulate that we are currently in a pea shooter. How so, you may ask, since there's only the three natural states of a pea I have proven earlier? Well, elementary, my dear reader, obviously being in a pea shooter is a special case of being in a pea pod. Cause it's sort of like in something too. What does that mean now though? I think we are currently in the very last moments before being shot from the pea shooter. This, I assume, will destroy our universe as we know it, oh it will still exist in a different form, but we won't be there anymore. I argue that that is what the Mayan calendar has been predicting, you can even find evidence in the word itself. Mayan....MAYan....May...and what happens in may? You can eat peas in may, I don't know how it could be anymore obvious. So it seems like these are our last months in this pea universe. But don't worry, obviously the pea lifecycle is cyclic (as the name states provam ad nameam) so in a couple years the pea that has is now going to be shot out...our universe...will be growing into its own plant and when it has its seeds, we'll all be here again.

Well, unless we land on concrete or something.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The problem is that those two answers are not really distinct. They are distinct in the english language but it is difficult to see if it actually reflects underlying reality. For instance, we know that seemingly empty space is actually a sea of virtual particles, and, there is no well established mechanism for there to possibly be "less" than this... so I would argue "nothing" is not even a reality in science.

This is one possible explanation. However, it is not accurate to say the conservation of energy is 100% absolute. It is violated often at the quantum level. In the extremely different conditions of the big bang, these could possibly be quite relevant. Obviously, this is an issue still under research.

No scientist would claim this is a known fact... many people do not even believe there was anything before the big bang. But it is basically at the level of speculation at this point. There are very interesting models for this in Brane cosmology. I don't really understand the principles behind them.

This is not quite how it works. The expansion is an expansion of space, not an expansion into space. The universe is all space, so if you think there is something outside of it, what would it be? It would not be space? How can you define expansion when there is not even a spacial dimension. That explanation is not that bizarre. I would say your take on it is more bizarre than modern cosmology is. Your idea does not even make sense, if there was space outside the universe, then it would be part of the universe (there's nothing separating them, so why would they be considered anything different?)

I have felt like this was an interesting equation myself, i'm not sure of the answer. One suggestion I have heard that makes sense is that the expansion of space between particles was faster then light, in which case, nothing is actually "moving" at those speeds but there is simply a greater distance developing between them. I really can't speak to this though.

If you understood what red shift actually is from a technical sense, you would see why this is not really a problem. Basically, you are not distinguishing the intensity of light from its wavelength... the kind of "losing energy" you are talking about is a change in intensity i.e. losing photons, it is not the same as red shifting which is the photons themselves existing as a longer wave. They are quite distinct concepts physically. Red shifting is the same thing that happens when a car with sirens drives away from you, the siren will be slower as it goes away. Likewise, light becomes "slower" as its source moves away. It is not really the same thing as what you were talking about.

Actually, most scientists would say "if" you could go faster than light is an irrelevant question, because you can't. Its a completely hypothetical question, like saying "if" 2+2=5. They are just having fun seeing what happens when you put out-of-bound values into the equations. That's why this neutrino result is interesting, and why even the scientists who published it are very skeptical. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, and people know that most sensational discoveries are erroneous. So we'll wait and see on that one.

Your position of time is basically backwards. The "space time" is what is true as in, actually reflects the reality of the universe. The sort of view of time in human language, does not really reflect anything real, it is just a model our brain has evolved to make sense of things. Since most of these extreme situations would never impact an ancient animal, we are not really equipped to think about them in a visual, intuitive way. That is why these sort of concepts seem so counter intuitive to people. That's why it pays to have some basic knowledge of mathematics (at least some calculus) going into these discussions.

There is a very big distinction between nothing and something. Same as there is a very big distinction between infinite and finite.
In my theory, the concept of nothingness does not exist, because the universe is infinte. Infinite size, infinite time, infinite substructure, infinite everything.

I am not sure how important scientists consider the law of conservation of energy, but personally I think it is one of the most important ideas there is.
In my opinion it applies to more than just energy though, it applies to everything.
I am going to use the word energy to mean everything in existence as I cannot think of a suitable word.
There is an infinite amount of energy in the universe. This amount never changes, it is never created nor destroyed.
Scientists often say how strange the quantum world is and how some things do not make sense.
This is not that surprising though is it, because they are observing tiny microscopic phenomena and so are bound to get confused and not know what the hell is happening.
This reminded of something else.
Scientists cannot reconcile quantum theory and general relativity theory.
They say the laws of physics are different at the quantum level.
So, they are trying to find a "theory of everything" so they can join all the dots.
Well what if the reason they cannot reconcile them is because one or both are wrong?

If the universe started out as a very small, very hot, very dense ball containing all the energy of the universe (or most or some, a lot anyway), and beyond this there was nothing, then how could it expand? If there is nothing it cannot expand because the volume of the universe cannot increase because there is nothing for it to increase into.
I have never heard or seen an explanation for this that makes any logical sense.

I think Space and Time are completely separate. Time is constant.
If you constructed billions of huge grandfather clocks made from pure thought, placed them at various locations throughout the universe, then time would pass exactly the same for all of them, no matter what was happening anywhere in the universe. There could be stars going supernova, black holes eating up planets, spaceships going faster than light etc etc. All the grandfather clocks would tick at exactly the same speed for eternity.

I would like to mention something else that really bothers me as well.
The guy who first proposed the Big Bang was Georges Lemaitre, he was a catholic priest.
We know all too well, from history, that religion does not like science very much AT ALL.
I have a very real fear that we have ended up in a world surrounded by dodgy science at it might take decades to get us back on track.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
There is a very big distinction between nothing and something. Same as there is a very big distinction between infinite and finite.
In my theory, the concept of nothingness does not exist, because the universe is infinte. Infinite size, infinite time, infinite substructure, infinite everything.

I am not sure how important scientists consider the law of conservation of energy, but personally I think it is one of the most important ideas there is.
In my opinion it applies to more than just energy though, it applies to everything.
I am going to use the word energy to mean everything in existence as I cannot think of a suitable word.
There is an infinite amount of energy in the universe. This amount never changes, it is never created nor destroyed.
Scientists often say how strange the quantum world is and how some things do not make sense.
This is not that surprising though is it, because they are observing tiny microscopic phenomena and so are bound to get confused and not know what the hell is happening.
This reminded of something else.
Scientists cannot reconcile quantum theory and general relativity theory.
They say the laws of physics are different at the quantum level.
So, they are trying to find a "theory of everything" so they can join all the dots.
Well what if the reason they cannot reconcile them is because one or both are wrong?

If the universe started out as a very small, very hot, very dense ball containing all the energy of the universe (or most or some, a lot anyway), and beyond this there was nothing, then how could it expand? If there is nothing it cannot expand because the volume of the universe cannot increase because there is nothing for it to increase into.
I have never heard or seen an explanation for this that makes any logical sense.

I think Space and Time are completely separate. Time is constant.
If you constructed billions of huge grandfather clocks made from pure thought, placed them at various locations throughout the universe, then time would pass exactly the same for all of them, no matter what was happening anywhere in the universe. There could be stars going supernova, black holes eating up planets, spaceships going faster than light etc etc. All the grandfather clocks would tick at exactly the same speed for eternity.

I would like to mention something else that really bothers me as well.
The guy who first proposed the Big Bang was Georges Lemaitre, he was a catholic priest.
We know all too well, from history, that religion does not like science very much AT ALL.
I have a very real fear that we have ended up in a world surrounded by dodgy science at it might take decades to get us back on track.

Just generally, I'm wondering, what qualifications do you hold and what job do you have?

Where do you read about science usually?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just generally, I'm wondering, what qualifications do you hold and what job do you have?

Where do you read about science usually?

I am wondering why you ask the question.

I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician.

I'm just a simple man trying to make my way in the universe. 😄

Are you of the opinion that only scientists and mathematicians are entitled to take part in a philosophical debate?

I read books, look on'tinternet and watch science documentaries

But mostly I sit and think, sometimes I think stood up as well

Right now I am going to bed and will have a quick wa...think before I fall asleep

😱

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I am wondering why you ask the question.

I am neither a scientist nor a mathematician.

I'm just a simple man trying to make my way in the universe. 😄

Are you of the opinion that only scientists and mathematicians are entitled to take part in a philosophical debate?

I read books, look on'tinternet and watch science documentaries

But mostly I sit and think, sometimes I think stood up as well

Right now I am going to bed and will have a quick wa...think before I fall asleep

😱

I am asking because I think you misunderstand many of the scientific concepts you are referencing. You seem to have a pop culture understanding of Sciences. I would not deny you participation in scientific discourse, some of the greatest insights can come from those outside of a certain field. But you still have to understand what you are talking about, you need to be able to use the tools to prove your thoughts, and yes, that tends to be Mathematics in the realms of Physics.

You mentioned "philosophical debate", I worry you mean the "claim anything randomly without any evidence and shoddy reasoning" definition that everyone can surely participate in, but that never leads to any meaningful contributions to the understanding of the world.

What I am saying is, I think you don't understand the concepts you are talking about, I think what's happening here is this (unless you are just trolling, in which case, carry merrily on):

Also, it's half past twelve, what are you doing going to bed?

Originally posted by King Kandy
Well, this might at least be true that we do not have an exact value for a "true vacuum", but, if we did, that value would simply be a new more accurate value for c. It wouldn't make it relative it would just demonstrate that light slows in a medium, which we knew already.

Of this, I agree.

But, it's possible that the real speed of light is infinite and our observation of c is c because of the influences of stuff. I have to type "stuff" because there's just too much to cover.

It's also possible that light is too fast...and real "c" is slower. We just don't know because we don't have a truly, uninfluenced, vacuum in which to measure light (would light even work in such a vacuum...would introducing light in such place actually destroy the entire point because it would create all of that other "stuff"?)

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
There is a very big distinction between nothing and something. Same as there is a very big distinction between infinite and finite.
In my theory, the concept of nothingness does not exist, because the universe is infinte. Infinite size, infinite time, infinite substructure, infinite everything.

There are lots of words in the english language, that are not really tied to anything real. There has never been a case of "absolute nothing" in the universe, so I don't think its a very useful concept to talk about.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I am not sure how important scientists consider the law of conservation of energy, but personally I think it is one of the most important ideas there is.
In my opinion it applies to more than just energy though, it applies to everything.
I am going to use the word energy to mean everything in existence as I cannot think of a suitable word.
There is an infinite amount of energy in the universe. This amount never changes, it is never created nor destroyed.
Scientists often say how strange the quantum world is and how some things do not make sense.
This is not that surprising though is it, because they are observing tiny microscopic phenomena and so are bound to get confused and not know what the hell is happening.
This reminded of something else.
Scientists cannot reconcile quantum theory and general relativity theory.
They say the laws of physics are different at the quantum level.
So, they are trying to find a "theory of everything" so they can join all the dots.
Well what if the reason they cannot reconcile them is because one or both are wrong?

Relativity or quantum mechanics could have flaws, but again, this would be because we found an actual observation revealing the flaws. Not just because people have trouble visualizing it. I think this video by the great scientist/philosopher (ironically, he hated the title "philosopher"😉 Richard Feynmann, really hits the nail on the head here:

YouTube video

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
If the universe started out as a very small, very hot, very dense ball containing all the energy of the universe (or most or some, a lot anyway), and beyond this there was nothing, then how could it expand? If there is nothing it cannot expand because the volume of the universe cannot increase because there is nothing for it to increase into.
I have never heard or seen an explanation for this that makes any logical sense.

As an analogy, what if someone came up to you and asked why the eighth color of the rainbow "yefurple" has an imaginary wavelength. Well, there is no yefurple, so that's not even a question that makes any kind of sense. That's how I feel like when you talk about absolute nothingness. As far as we know, there is no such thing so that's not even a well-defined question. So of course, the answer doesn't make much sense either.

The universe is not like liquid expanding inside a flask... the universe is all spacetime so, it is not even possible to define what would be "outside" its boundaries. Anything outside, would not really be outside but just a region of the universe without very much stuff in it.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
think Space and Time are completely separate. Time is constant.
If you constructed billions of huge grandfather clocks made from pure thought, placed them at various locations throughout the universe, then time would pass exactly the same for all of them, no matter what was happening anywhere in the universe. There could be stars going supernova, black holes eating up planets, spaceships going faster than light etc etc. All the grandfather clocks would tick at exactly the same speed for eternity.

Originally posted by GRIMNIR
I would like to mention something else that really bothers me as well.
The guy who first proposed the Big Bang was Georges Lemaitre, he was a catholic priest.
We know all too well, from history, that religion does not like science very much AT ALL.
I have a very real fear that we have ended up in a world surrounded by dodgy science at it might take decades to get us back on track.

Originally posted by King Kandy
There is not really a distinction. Its like saying there's a distinction between moving and standing still. Its certainly true in the english language, but we know from relativity that this idea is basically bogus, just depends on your vantage point.

There are lots of words in the english language, that are not really tied to anything real. There has never been a case of "absolute nothing" in the universe, so I don't think its a very useful concept to talk about.

This is exactly that "four elements" idea again. How do you think scientists figured out the conservation of energy? It wasn't because someone said "well, it sounds like it makes sense". It was because people took rigorous observations where energy was conserved, and built a theory with a strong mathematical basis. And now we know, those observations are questionable at the quantum level. This isn't something that just came out of a person's head, this was something inspired by actual data.

Relativity or quantum mechanics could have flaws, but again, this would be because we found an actual observation revealing the flaws. Not just because people have trouble visualizing it. I think this video by the great scientist/philosopher (ironically, he hated the title "philosopher"😉 Richard Feynmann, really hits the nail on the head here:

YouTube video

It doesn't make sense to you because you are basing this on false premises. Beyond it there was not "nothing". It does not even make sense to talk about space "beyond" the universe; that space would be part of the universe. It is not expanding into anything, the space itself is expanding.

As an analogy, what if someone came up to you and asked why the eighth color of the rainbow "yefurple" has an imaginary wavelength. Well, there is no yefurple, so that's not even a question that makes any kind of sense. That's how I feel like when you talk about absolute nothingness. As far as we know, there is no such thing so that's not even a well-defined question. So of course, the answer doesn't make much sense either.

The universe is not like liquid expanding inside a flask... the universe is all spacetime so, it is not even possible to define what would be "outside" its boundaries. Anything outside, would not really be outside but just a region of the universe without very much stuff in it.

Well, I don't know what to say here except you're simply flat wrong. They have actually put clocks on rockets and tested this, and there is a difference in how they run. So this is factually incorrect, we know that grandfather clocks won''t tick at the same speed because we've actually done it, and they don't. This is one of the major pieces of evidence that supports relativity, because it is equal to the change predicted for something moving at that speed relative to the earth.

This is stupid. I can't really be gentle here, but it is not sound science to attack a theory just because its creator was religious. Like I said, Lemaitre did not simply come up with this off the top of his head, it was based on real observations about the expansion of the universe. He did not hate science but used a strong background in math and science to formulate this theory. So you are just way off the mark here, you cannot refuse science just because you don't like the guy that created it.

Nothingness or something is not the same as moving or standing still at all.
If you believe in a FINITE universe, you must also believe in nothingness.
If nothingness does not exist then then the universe cannot be finite, it has to be infinite.

"Space itself is expanding". Please define space in your own personal words.
What is it made of? Don't just say scientists have done this or that and so they know it is expanding? I want you to explain and define your concept of space itself.

I said grandfather clocks made of pure thought. The reason I said this is because I do not see time as so timething tangible. If you make a clock from any type of substance, then you are not measuring TRUE time, you are only measuring the human perception of time.
Human beings themselves cannot measure true time, because they only have a limited view of the universe.

I repeat what I said before, if you positioned billions of imaginary grandfather clocks composed of thought throughout the universe. The progression of time would be the same for every single one of them, no matter what happened in the universe.

Time travel is impossible. It is only possible inside a mathematical equation of "spacetime". This is just a human concept, so ACTUAL time travel throughout REAL time is not possible.

I just view the universe completely different to you.
It would be easy for me to just agree with all what scientists claim, but I like to question everything. If I do not get a satisfactory explanation I have doubts.
Correct if I am wrong but if an idea is called a theory, then it is not 100% proven right? Otherwise would it not be a law?
It is like a work in progress that most people believe is very likely to be true, but there is doubt.

Could it be possible that in 500 years from now the world of science is gove rned by a set of completely different laws than that of today?
The scientists of that era might well look back on our era in much the same way that we look back to the dark ages.